Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Better to focus on Lincoln' actions as president, rather than any personal preferences for religion etc. in his personal life. We don't need to keep mixing these two in the political arena, which leads to division and trouble.
If there were key philosophies in his life that he expounded on - such as working against slavery - that's fine, as philosophy tends to be broader than religion. But successes with broad philosophies shouldn't be used to promote religion.
The original post is another in a series of "slight of hand" tricks, to use higher and broader principles to promote lower and narrower religious subjects. I'm calling it out, and calling foul, that it got noticed once again. I've witnessed the OP using positives that happen to be in the political area to support religion here, and using positives in the religious area to support politics in the Politics forum. It's really childish, but maybe also escaping the OP's notice and awareness (I hope).
Last edited by Thoreau424; Yesterday at 08:43 AM..
I'd rather focus on Lincoln' actions as president, rather than any personal preferences for religion etc. in his personal life. We don't need to keep mixing these two in the political arena, which leads to division and trouble.
Now, if there were key philosophies in his life that he expounded on - such as working against slavery - that's fine, as philosophy tends to be much broader than religion. But successes with broad philosophies shouldn't be used to promote religion. The original post is another in a series of "slight of hand" tricks, to use higher and broader principles to promote lower and narrower religious subjects. But I'm calling it out, and calling foul, that it got noticed once again.
well this is the religion and spirituality forum, so the discussion of Lincoln is within the framework of paths of religion and spirituality. and every path of religion and spirituality contains within it a philosophy.
i do however agree that philosophies and principles are not the "property" of any single path. And i agree that there is an element of "promotion" or "labelling" that is part of a pattern (habit? agenda? recurring?) (whether that is conscious or unconscious, deliberate or programmed) of promoting or proselytizing a particular group or segment.
but it also promotes discussion and a more in depth look, which is of value in showing the problems in well proselytizing in general. (talking about the behavior, not any person or individual posting). the funny thing about using Lincoln, though, is that he was the one USA president who never joined a church himself; and Lincoln did NOT identify as a Christian. what the thread served to do is bring that to light.
i find the variety of viewpoints presented as part of a robust discussion. including the post above, it too brings something of value to the conversation.
a yogi by definition is one who has achieved realization per Vedanta. Krishna is described as a yogi.
a yogi is also by definition a practitioner of yoga. a yogi is also someone anywhere along the path. in my view, it is clear how the word was used, in the context it was used. not all monks, not all yogis, are "Realized"
Better to focus on Lincoln' actions as president, rather than any personal preferences for religion etc. in his personal life. We don't need to keep mixing these two in the political arena, which leads to division and trouble.
Now, if there were key philosophies in his life that he expounded on - such as working against slavery - that's fine, as philosophy is almost always broader than religion. But successes with broad philosophies shouldn't be used to promote religion.
The original post is another in a series of "slight of hand" tricks, to use higher and broader principles to promote lower and narrower religious subjects. I'm calling it out, and calling foul, that it got noticed once again.
This is the Religion forum. The title of the thread is Lincoln and Religion. Lincoln was not just a pol. He was human. We don’t know all that he was motivated by, but his action to stop the spread of slavery indicates a moral center.
The original post is more relevant to the Philosophy forum, because his ways discussed fell under the realm of philosophy, not religion. Of course there were clear attempts to slant his actions to fall more under the umbrella of religion, but I've studied him too, and don't see that was the case. One of the main reasons he remains among the usual "best presidents" was because he followed broad principles that helped all, not the more subject ones that have limited appeal and success (including those of specific religious group or belief).
The original post is more relevant to the Philosophy forum, because his ways discussed fell under the realm of philosophy, not religion. That's what I was conveying.
The division between philosophy and religion is an artificial construct. Eastern thought and religion are intimately connected, they inform each other. Depending on one’s orientation they are not poles apart although they can be discussed separately.
The division between philosophy and religion is an artificial construct. Eastern thought and religion are intimately connected, they inform each other. Depending on one’s orientation they are not poles apart although they can be discussed separately.
Nope. And most of the Eastern schools of thought don't specifically tie into a religion and feature a deity / deities. Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, and Bushido are just a few examples. Taoism points to a universal force that we interact with, but it has no personality, and is not a deity. And the focus is on our actions, not trying to define the force or getting caught up with it.
Last edited by Thoreau424; Yesterday at 09:08 AM..
The original post is more relevant to the Philosophy forum, because his ways discussed fell under the realm of philosophy, not religion. Of course there were clear attempts to slant his actions to fall more under the umbrella of religion, but I've studied him too, and don't see that was the case. One of the main reasons he remains among the usual "best presidents" was because he followed broad principles that helped all, not the more subject ones that have limited appeal and success (including those of specific religious group or belief).
i agree with bold above. My view is that the use of generic language and common principles are more far-reaching. And less prone to being seen as proselytizing, which in my view is inherently distasteful. because it comes across as pushy salesman behavior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
